Alright, here it comes. We now know that Trayvon Martin had traces of Marijuana in his blood at the time of death. This seems to vindicate a statement made by Zimmerman during the phone call with the police where he describes TM as "looking high" (He looks high". In this moment, GZ made a profiling on TM and acted accordingly. It turns out that this was a justified profiling: Zimmerman knew what to look for.
Like I sadi before, we know that there is a very high correlation between drug use and crime. Therefore, GZ was probably not unjustified in calling the police form his car. However, TM noticed GZ and took off during the call. We can hear GZ getting out of his car and following until the police tell him to stop. At that moment, we hear GZ catch his breath and pant a little.
I can go more into where he probably was at that moment in another post, but I want to mention the injuries reported by the prosecution. First, we know that in addition to the gashes on the back of his head, GZ had a broken nose and two black eyes. He has no wounds on his hands though. As for TM, we know he had a gunshot wound fired from point blank range. He also had some wound on his hands, on the outside of his ring finger.
This evidence supports an analysis that Trayvon did punch Zimmerman and that Zimmerman did not fight back until actually shooting TM. This does not sound like a murder. Or even a manslaughter. This sounds like normal self defense. I hope GZ walks free and gets his life back.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Why I am against Homosexual Unions recognized by law (Part 1): the Secular Argument
Can of worms, I know. Here it is, loud and as clearly as I can articulate.
I know this will be an offensive argument to some people, but then again, I get offended by arguments disagreeing with me all the time, so I guess we are not entitled to always feel comfortable or in agreement with what others write.
This argument will be highly technical in parts, so if you have a question on a specific part, then comment. People get highly emotional about these things, so please keep any replies reasonable and sober. Any comments that personally attack me or people who agree with me will be deleted.
Assumption 1: The primary duty of the state (national government) is the establishment of a general security over the life, freedom and property of those people who reside within their sovereign borders who call themselves citizens of that state (country or nation).
Assumption 2: The state is not interested in making its citizens happy. It instead seeks to establish the conditions in which individuals can seek out their own ideas of happiness to within a reasonable margin.
Assumption 3: The state seeks to maintain itself against the attempts to destroy it by other states, nature and time itself.
Assumption 4: The state is limited in its pursuit of power by the need to allow its citizens the space to pursue whatever reasonable interests they desire.
Assumption 5: The standard unit for the procreation and rearing of children has been in all of written history the family as defined as the union and products (what a terrible word) between and of one man and one woman.
Assumption 6: The capitalist state wishes to have a constantly expanding economy.
Given these assumptions, since the state wishes to maintain itself, it must do so by preventing its citizens from all dying out by not having children. Furthermore, since the only real way to perpetually increase an economy is to increase the number of consumers and workers, and this is best done by having many children. Furthermore, the traditional family unit has, for the vast majority of history, been the solely accepted form of having and rearing multiple children.
Also, since the state is not concerned with making its citizens happy, it should not concern itself with making the lives of its citizens easier AT ITS OWN EXPENSE unless there is a large, tangible benefit to such an action. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to make it easier on individuals who provide well reared children to the population. Thus the state has chosen historically to recognize and track marriages while also providing automatic benefits to married couples and their children. For that reason, the state has no fundamental interest in giving the same benefits to same sex couples since they, by definition, cannot bear children.
The question of whether a same sex couple can raise a child well is not settled, and there is evidence on both sides of that particular question. However, it is difficult to dispute that traditionally (aka historically) the best system for raising children has been in a home where both the mother and father are present and both actively involved in the development, indoctrination and education of the child.
Common Rebuttals and my answers to them.
a)Sterility: Few individuals know if they are sterile or not when they marry. It is also unduly burdensome to mandate that every person be tested for infertility. It is also true that few individuals know that they are sterile. A few sources I have looked at say that up to 8% of the population of couples suffer from infertility. It is therefore, reasonably certain to assume upon entering a marriage, that one is likely fertile and able to have children. Thus, in principle, the state should not prevent infertile couples from marriage since, in principle, the possibility for conception is present. Furthermore, a couple that is trying to have children but is sterile is a prime candidate to adopt children.
b)Changed Societal ideas of marriage: I do not contest, nor disagree with the idea that marriage is for the love and support between two people. However, my ideology about marriage, as well as the historical record of marriage states that marriage is also for children just as it is for love and support etc. Furthermore, the idea that ALL of society has changed its ideas about marriage is simply untrue. Even if it were true, it does not make my ideas about marriage any less reasonable or valid. Democracies work upon the principle of argument, disagreement and resolution. Ideas, like the idea that marriage is solely for the love and support between 2 people, is one which cannot be argued to be "empirical and unchanging" as many of its proponents do.
If however, there ever came a day when all people divorced the idea of marriage from children, then I would argue that government would no longer derive any benefits from the recognition of such unions that that all benefits should then be cut off.
Conclusion
Individuals can live together, love each other and build a community around themselves without government approval. In fact, as I said above, government need no involve itself unless it has a very tangible benefit in doing so. Citizens can be happy without their government approving legally everything they do though giving them a special status and benefits.
All this being said, the law in the USA is currently extremely invasive in the lives of its citizens, going way beyond what is necessary for providing an atmosphere conducive to individuals freely being able to pursue their own happiness. Laws like visitation rights in hospitals are quite frankly excessive and invasive.
Homosexual partners want the benefits that married couples automatically receive by virtue of being married. However, a much more reasonable idea would be to simply allow people to make contracts with one another stating that they allow certain people to have certain privileges and powers and responsibilities. This can include the power of attorney, vitiation rights, pension transfers etc. However, these contracts would have to be honored by private companies and the government should be committed to protecting the legality of these contracts.
For these fully secular reasons, I am opposed to the government recognition and provision of benefits to homosexual unions.
This argument will be highly technical in parts, so if you have a question on a specific part, then comment. People get highly emotional about these things, so please keep any replies reasonable and sober. Any comments that personally attack me or people who agree with me will be deleted.
Assumption 1: The primary duty of the state (national government) is the establishment of a general security over the life, freedom and property of those people who reside within their sovereign borders who call themselves citizens of that state (country or nation).
Assumption 2: The state is not interested in making its citizens happy. It instead seeks to establish the conditions in which individuals can seek out their own ideas of happiness to within a reasonable margin.
Assumption 3: The state seeks to maintain itself against the attempts to destroy it by other states, nature and time itself.
Assumption 4: The state is limited in its pursuit of power by the need to allow its citizens the space to pursue whatever reasonable interests they desire.
Assumption 5: The standard unit for the procreation and rearing of children has been in all of written history the family as defined as the union and products (what a terrible word) between and of one man and one woman.
Assumption 6: The capitalist state wishes to have a constantly expanding economy.
Given these assumptions, since the state wishes to maintain itself, it must do so by preventing its citizens from all dying out by not having children. Furthermore, since the only real way to perpetually increase an economy is to increase the number of consumers and workers, and this is best done by having many children. Furthermore, the traditional family unit has, for the vast majority of history, been the solely accepted form of having and rearing multiple children.
Also, since the state is not concerned with making its citizens happy, it should not concern itself with making the lives of its citizens easier AT ITS OWN EXPENSE unless there is a large, tangible benefit to such an action. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to make it easier on individuals who provide well reared children to the population. Thus the state has chosen historically to recognize and track marriages while also providing automatic benefits to married couples and their children. For that reason, the state has no fundamental interest in giving the same benefits to same sex couples since they, by definition, cannot bear children.
The question of whether a same sex couple can raise a child well is not settled, and there is evidence on both sides of that particular question. However, it is difficult to dispute that traditionally (aka historically) the best system for raising children has been in a home where both the mother and father are present and both actively involved in the development, indoctrination and education of the child.
Common Rebuttals and my answers to them.
a)Sterility: Few individuals know if they are sterile or not when they marry. It is also unduly burdensome to mandate that every person be tested for infertility. It is also true that few individuals know that they are sterile. A few sources I have looked at say that up to 8% of the population of couples suffer from infertility. It is therefore, reasonably certain to assume upon entering a marriage, that one is likely fertile and able to have children. Thus, in principle, the state should not prevent infertile couples from marriage since, in principle, the possibility for conception is present. Furthermore, a couple that is trying to have children but is sterile is a prime candidate to adopt children.
b)Changed Societal ideas of marriage: I do not contest, nor disagree with the idea that marriage is for the love and support between two people. However, my ideology about marriage, as well as the historical record of marriage states that marriage is also for children just as it is for love and support etc. Furthermore, the idea that ALL of society has changed its ideas about marriage is simply untrue. Even if it were true, it does not make my ideas about marriage any less reasonable or valid. Democracies work upon the principle of argument, disagreement and resolution. Ideas, like the idea that marriage is solely for the love and support between 2 people, is one which cannot be argued to be "empirical and unchanging" as many of its proponents do.
If however, there ever came a day when all people divorced the idea of marriage from children, then I would argue that government would no longer derive any benefits from the recognition of such unions that that all benefits should then be cut off.
Conclusion
Individuals can live together, love each other and build a community around themselves without government approval. In fact, as I said above, government need no involve itself unless it has a very tangible benefit in doing so. Citizens can be happy without their government approving legally everything they do though giving them a special status and benefits.
All this being said, the law in the USA is currently extremely invasive in the lives of its citizens, going way beyond what is necessary for providing an atmosphere conducive to individuals freely being able to pursue their own happiness. Laws like visitation rights in hospitals are quite frankly excessive and invasive.
Homosexual partners want the benefits that married couples automatically receive by virtue of being married. However, a much more reasonable idea would be to simply allow people to make contracts with one another stating that they allow certain people to have certain privileges and powers and responsibilities. This can include the power of attorney, vitiation rights, pension transfers etc. However, these contracts would have to be honored by private companies and the government should be committed to protecting the legality of these contracts.
For these fully secular reasons, I am opposed to the government recognition and provision of benefits to homosexual unions.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Trayvon Martin: Part One
For those who know my Facebook posts, it is no secret that I firmly believe that, short of a confession, Zimmerman will be acquitted on all charges related to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Martin should not have died, but Zimmerman did not commit a crime, nor did he act immorally in the killing of Martin.
Let me explain. This is going to be a long post and there will be another one tomorrow. There is just too much info on this to address right now. Tomorrow, if I have time, then I will be posting all the sources that I have for all the info that I can find.
In Florida, if you are under attack and reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm, then you have the right, provided that you are in a place you are allowed to be, to use force and even deadly force in stopping the attack. That is almost verbatim language from Florida law. Yeah, I spent some time yesterday combing through the Florida code.
Somethings in the Florida code jumped out at me. By now, many people know that George Zimmerman has been charged with murder in the second degree. Murder in the second degree means that while he had no intent to kill Trayvon Martin, the state is accusing Zimmerman of killing Martin when there was no really good reason to do so. In other words, they will argue that Zimmerman shot Martin not in self defense, but in anger and in a depraved state of mind.
They will seek to prove this by claiming that Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to cease and desist a pursuit of Trayvon Martin and that because Zimmerman did not cease his pursuit, he is therefore guilty of allowing his state of mind to become unhinged, thus causing him to act in an unlawful manner.
The Police have already received a statement from Martin's mother stating that a 911 call from a witness contains the screams of her son.
However, there are also witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Video tapes of Zimmerman hours after the shooting show a gash on the back of his head. The police report includes mentions of grass stains on GZ's back. This is therefore consistent with the testimony of the witness.
But of course, a mother knows her son's voice so what is going on here?
I honestly have no idea. It seems unlikely that the person beating the trash MMA style out of a the guy beneath him would be yelling Help like his life depended on it. For this reason, forensic tests need to be performed to determine what is the likely truth of the matter here. Because of course, the mother is biased just like any relative would be. If you think GZ's father or brother are reliable then you need to have your head checked. A confounding variable here is that GZ does not have a low voice.
A totally fake issue in the case is the question of racist profiling. Zimmerman did not identify Martin's race until he was asked directly by the dispatcher during the 911 call. He then goes on to vent his frustration about criminals saying how they always get away. He also could have said "f***ing cold" or "punks". What he could not have said was coons, which is an archaic racial slur for blacks. Remember GZ is 28, not 60.
Martin had a history of drug use, definitely marijuana. In fact, he was in the process of serving a suspension from school for carrying a bag that had contained weed. His Twitter feed was filled with references to his drug use. His Facebook contains a comment from one of is friends that suggests that Martin MAY (though there is no kind of certainty) suggest that Martin was a small time weed dealer. The media and the Martin cheerleaders like AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have said this is an irrelevant factor. However, Zimmerman also said that Martin looked "high".
The fact is this. If you look at correlative studies, you will see that drug use and crime are highly correlated and that those who are on drugs are also more likely to commit crimes. This is not to say that Martin should have been shot, but if it was true that he was high upon entering the complex, then perhaps Zimmerman was being intelligent: people are drugs are much more likely to be crooks than ordinary folks. So it is very relevant that Martin had a history of drug abuse since it would seem to vindicate Zimmerman's determination that Martin looked suspicious.
Let me explain. This is going to be a long post and there will be another one tomorrow. There is just too much info on this to address right now. Tomorrow, if I have time, then I will be posting all the sources that I have for all the info that I can find.
In Florida, if you are under attack and reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm, then you have the right, provided that you are in a place you are allowed to be, to use force and even deadly force in stopping the attack. That is almost verbatim language from Florida law. Yeah, I spent some time yesterday combing through the Florida code.
Somethings in the Florida code jumped out at me. By now, many people know that George Zimmerman has been charged with murder in the second degree. Murder in the second degree means that while he had no intent to kill Trayvon Martin, the state is accusing Zimmerman of killing Martin when there was no really good reason to do so. In other words, they will argue that Zimmerman shot Martin not in self defense, but in anger and in a depraved state of mind.
They will seek to prove this by claiming that Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to cease and desist a pursuit of Trayvon Martin and that because Zimmerman did not cease his pursuit, he is therefore guilty of allowing his state of mind to become unhinged, thus causing him to act in an unlawful manner.
The Police have already received a statement from Martin's mother stating that a 911 call from a witness contains the screams of her son.
However, there are also witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Video tapes of Zimmerman hours after the shooting show a gash on the back of his head. The police report includes mentions of grass stains on GZ's back. This is therefore consistent with the testimony of the witness.
But of course, a mother knows her son's voice so what is going on here?
I honestly have no idea. It seems unlikely that the person beating the trash MMA style out of a the guy beneath him would be yelling Help like his life depended on it. For this reason, forensic tests need to be performed to determine what is the likely truth of the matter here. Because of course, the mother is biased just like any relative would be. If you think GZ's father or brother are reliable then you need to have your head checked. A confounding variable here is that GZ does not have a low voice.
A totally fake issue in the case is the question of racist profiling. Zimmerman did not identify Martin's race until he was asked directly by the dispatcher during the 911 call. He then goes on to vent his frustration about criminals saying how they always get away. He also could have said "f***ing cold" or "punks". What he could not have said was coons, which is an archaic racial slur for blacks. Remember GZ is 28, not 60.
Martin had a history of drug use, definitely marijuana. In fact, he was in the process of serving a suspension from school for carrying a bag that had contained weed. His Twitter feed was filled with references to his drug use. His Facebook contains a comment from one of is friends that suggests that Martin MAY (though there is no kind of certainty) suggest that Martin was a small time weed dealer. The media and the Martin cheerleaders like AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have said this is an irrelevant factor. However, Zimmerman also said that Martin looked "high".
The fact is this. If you look at correlative studies, you will see that drug use and crime are highly correlated and that those who are on drugs are also more likely to commit crimes. This is not to say that Martin should have been shot, but if it was true that he was high upon entering the complex, then perhaps Zimmerman was being intelligent: people are drugs are much more likely to be crooks than ordinary folks. So it is very relevant that Martin had a history of drug abuse since it would seem to vindicate Zimmerman's determination that Martin looked suspicious.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Golly, It has been years since I have been here.
Well, it is not like anyone reads this blog, but I guess it is a nice outlet for my writing when I absolutely need it. I will try to post more often from now on. Maybe every 3 or 4 days or so.
Dani
Dani
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Problems with Going Green as a Catholic
I love a good debate. Although I do not consider myself an ardent environmentalist, when I saw that the UD Earth Service was going to host Father Patrick Foley, a Franciscan from the Archdiocese of St. Paul, I was interested. On the day of the presentation, I met him and he was warm, talkative and excitable, like many young priests I have known. A point in my book.
Fr. Foley has been a priest for three years, and that he has one significant publication currently to his name. He was commissioned by the Archdiocese to write a guide on how being green was catholic. This man does have both experience and background in the field.
During his presentation, he made a series of statements that were particularly troublesome. First, he stated that the USCCB document that accepted the UN's 2001 findings on global warming was to be accepted as “Magisterial” teaching. Indeed, if this pronouncement were truly magisterial, it would indeed require the submission of faith by all Catholics, according to Vatican I’s definition of the magisterial teaching. But this pronouncement was not Magisterial. The only times that council pronouncements carry the force of Magisterial teaching are when local bishops speak on matters of faith and morals, in unison with bishops of the whole world and the Bishop of Rome. This USCCB document meets neither of these criteria.
Second, Fr. Foley asserted that Climate Change was an undeniable reality. ‘It is a fact’ he repeated. In light of the recent ‘climate-gate’ scandal at the University of East Anglia in which climatologists who believed in Climate Change manipulated data, suppressed evidence and excluded colleagues who contradicted their beliefs, I would like to express a wholesome doubt about this current assumption.
I will skip over a few additional objections to Fr. Foley's lecture and talk about his problematic sources. He cited several “interesting” theologians. Leonardo Boff, a liberation theologian that left the Church after being censured for heresy; Sister Ilia Delio OSF, a nun who recently published a piece in a Catholic paper accusing the Vatican of being oppressors of women; Father Thomas Berry OP, who was a self professed “geologian” with heavy new age roots; Father Karl Rahner, who in his own work has denied transubstantiation; and finally Pierre Tielhard de Chardin SJ, whose works were all censured as heretical by the Church.
The use of problematic sources as a foundation causes this Eco-theology to misconstrue the essential relationship between Man and the environment. There is room for a defense of the environment within the Church, as long as this defense is properly understood. Pope Benedict XVI said in his last encyclical Caritas in Veritate that when “’human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits”. In other words, environmental degradation occurs with moral degradation and that the best way to fix it is to fix ourselves. It is through the resurrection of human virtue that the environment will begin to heal.
To be a truly “green” Catholic, we must not see the forest for the trees by getting caught up in the temporal/material problems of this life but rather achieve within ourselves virtue and peace and by imitating the actions of Christ, we will naturally fix the problems that plague our Earth.
James Locke
Fr. Foley has been a priest for three years, and that he has one significant publication currently to his name. He was commissioned by the Archdiocese to write a guide on how being green was catholic. This man does have both experience and background in the field.
During his presentation, he made a series of statements that were particularly troublesome. First, he stated that the USCCB document that accepted the UN's 2001 findings on global warming was to be accepted as “Magisterial” teaching. Indeed, if this pronouncement were truly magisterial, it would indeed require the submission of faith by all Catholics, according to Vatican I’s definition of the magisterial teaching. But this pronouncement was not Magisterial. The only times that council pronouncements carry the force of Magisterial teaching are when local bishops speak on matters of faith and morals, in unison with bishops of the whole world and the Bishop of Rome. This USCCB document meets neither of these criteria.
Second, Fr. Foley asserted that Climate Change was an undeniable reality. ‘It is a fact’ he repeated. In light of the recent ‘climate-gate’ scandal at the University of East Anglia in which climatologists who believed in Climate Change manipulated data, suppressed evidence and excluded colleagues who contradicted their beliefs, I would like to express a wholesome doubt about this current assumption.
I will skip over a few additional objections to Fr. Foley's lecture and talk about his problematic sources. He cited several “interesting” theologians. Leonardo Boff, a liberation theologian that left the Church after being censured for heresy; Sister Ilia Delio OSF, a nun who recently published a piece in a Catholic paper accusing the Vatican of being oppressors of women; Father Thomas Berry OP, who was a self professed “geologian” with heavy new age roots; Father Karl Rahner, who in his own work has denied transubstantiation; and finally Pierre Tielhard de Chardin SJ, whose works were all censured as heretical by the Church.
The use of problematic sources as a foundation causes this Eco-theology to misconstrue the essential relationship between Man and the environment. There is room for a defense of the environment within the Church, as long as this defense is properly understood. Pope Benedict XVI said in his last encyclical Caritas in Veritate that when “’human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits”. In other words, environmental degradation occurs with moral degradation and that the best way to fix it is to fix ourselves. It is through the resurrection of human virtue that the environment will begin to heal.
To be a truly “green” Catholic, we must not see the forest for the trees by getting caught up in the temporal/material problems of this life but rather achieve within ourselves virtue and peace and by imitating the actions of Christ, we will naturally fix the problems that plague our Earth.
James Locke
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Why we need to go back to the 1800's
I really really do not like Feminists. At least not the annoying post-Modern Feminists who do nto want Sexual equality but rather just want to be like men. They want to have their abortions and their relativism. Someone needs to shut these fools up. Not only that but we need to go back to the 1800's and destroy Seneca Falls. Blah. Anyways. I'm just frustrated wit the overall lack of intelligence and education that these women have.
University education ftw!
University education ftw!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Continued Determinism and Ryle
The doctrine of predestination takes its first roots from the bible. Assuming the vercity and scholarship behind the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible from the Vulgate is correct in its translations from the original Latin, the word predestination comes from the latin prae ordinarae which means to have been ordered before. It is first truly seen in the Bible in the latin "et crediderunt quotquot erant præordinati ad vitam æternam"1.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Double Predestination and Determinism
The concept of Predestination has developed steadily over the last 1700 years. Beginning in the early 4th century, the idea of Predestination began with the church fathers. For many years, the debate continued to evolve until a certain ideal was reached by teh Catholic church. Because of certain heretical movements across Europe in the late 15th and early 16th century, the idea of predestination evolved into something new. Previously, predestination had been understood as being the foreknowledge of God of the state of the human souls and the knowledge of how the soul will lead their life such that they will either go to heaven of suffer damnation. However, in the 16th Century, with the Protestant heresies spreading across Europe there came a new understanding of predestination. John Calvin in his institutes of Religion, talks about the power, the omnipotence of God over all things, as they are his creation. furthermore, he sees that because God is all powerful and all knowing, that God essentially creates man with an end in mind for him. In other words, God creates man already destined for Heaven or Hell. For Calvin and the other Protestants of his time, this essentially meant there was a double predestination. Instead of saying simply that God decides to save some people who have lived virtuous lives in His name, Calvin instead postulates that God also goes and damns everyone else to Hell, regardless of the life they have led. In modern analytical philosophy today, there is a philosophy called Behaviorism. Best epitomized by Gilbert Ryle, this philosophy attempts to resolve the questions presented by Dualists such as Descartes and Augustine. Ryle, in his Concept of Mind deconstructs the basic issues surrounding the problems of Descartes and proceeds to present his own ideas about the mind and will as a sort of continuation of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. However, through some careless process, Ryle runs into some precarious issues and the logical conclusion of his philosophy on the Will is essentially a Determinist explanation which perfectly fits with the idea of the Double Predestination.
Opposition to Homosexuality
well here I go. I know that if I post this to facebook, I will probably catch flak but its often so hard to get people to understand why we are opposed to homosexuality because it always end up with ah hom. attacks and the like without any discourse to real reason. and I am sick and tired of people telling me that I just dont understand. Facts are indisputable, ideas are not. These are my ideas and I am willing to dispute them. anyways.
First, My opposition against homosexuality is primarily a religious one. I am Catholic with a capital C and I believe everything that the CCC says. Morality has been given to the Church to be the arbiter of and I will respect that to my dying breath. That being said, I understand the Church's position against Homosexual conduct in several ways:
a) Homosexuality is defined as evil in the bible. New translations today for the first time in 1500 years of bibles are suddenly saying that homosexuality is not mentioned, but that instead its just talking about boy prostitutes. And I am a hat. Basically those people are mistranslating because they have an agenda in mind and I am not going to sit by and respect them for it. Corinthians, Leviticus, Romans and Timothy all contain passages against homosexuality and its consequences. end of story.
B)Homosexuality is condemned through tradition. It makes perfect sense to me with the argument that sexuality is meant to be used in one way only and that's it. he fathers, the doctors of the church and basically all theologians up to the last 50 years have been unanimous on this. it has only been in the last 50 years that the bad theologians, those who start with an end in mind and then proceed to twist everything to achieve it, have been able to hijack the media (who are anti-catholic for the most part) to misrepresent the church is so many ways.
Second, I understand that homosexuality is wrong as a practice also biologically. If Darwin is right and survival of the fittest and procreating to maintain the gene pool etc is the basic idea behind all morality, then it follows that sexual behavior not oriented to child bearing is wrong. Thankfully this is not the only reason why its wrong. Some people claim that animals exhibit homosexual behavior towards one another. I answer that it really is not homosexual behavior because (as the research shows) the behavior demonstrated by the animals is temporary and as normal as preening is. "homosexual" animals still procreate. Furthermore, why do we derive moral actions from animal behavior? Some animals eat each other and kill each other, they steal mates form others and abandon young to the wild. Why do we not do that too? I think the answer is obvious: because we do not draw our morality from the instinctual nature of animals. Therefore, that argument is fallacious and does not prove anything.
Third, Psychological argument. I am a big big fan of the Eriksonian notions of sexual identification through rearing. I do sincerely think that there is something big behind the idea that proper parenting results in normal heterosexual conduct. some studies confirm this, while others deny it. Regardless, just as it is bad for a child to be raised in a single parent house, so too is it for the same reason for the upbringing to be denied to same-sex couples.
Fourth, Because there is something sick and perverse about an entire group of people that define themselves simple on their sexuality. I really do think that sex is supposed to be in the bedroom and not leave there, homosexual or not. Al sex int he public media does nothing but desensitize us to the original beauty of sexuality and it benefits no one to have it out there except to fulfill the perversions of others. With this is mind I whole-heartedly reject the homosexual movement as nothing more than a group of people who are trying to push me and the government of the USA to recognize their perversions as good, something which I am opposed to because if my government is supposed to mirror the ideas of the populace then I think that as long as democracy reigns over this country, and there are enough people that oppose homosexuality, we should have every right to reject is soundly. I think all sex should be removed from the public world. And when I see a bookstore for gays and look inside, what do I find? Sordid pornographic materials behind the facade of "love".
Fifth, I think that homosexuality, even if determined before birth/in the womb, genetically, environmentally or hormonally, does not excuse it from being a defect. 1 in 100 children are mentally retarded ans we see that as a defect. Downs syndrome is bad. ADHD is bad. Why do we consider these bad but homosexuality not? I think there is a proper, ordered kind of human being that is in all respects normal. Indeed, I think that if we can say that mentally retarded children are defected because they cannot perform mental processes well, then for that same reason can we say that homosexuality is a defect as well. It all depends on perception.
In conclusion, if everyone were equal in every way, then we would have a sad world. Read this: Its a short which is Kurt's best Because belive it or not, this is where we will be.
First, My opposition against homosexuality is primarily a religious one. I am Catholic with a capital C and I believe everything that the CCC says. Morality has been given to the Church to be the arbiter of and I will respect that to my dying breath. That being said, I understand the Church's position against Homosexual conduct in several ways:
a) Homosexuality is defined as evil in the bible. New translations today for the first time in 1500 years of bibles are suddenly saying that homosexuality is not mentioned, but that instead its just talking about boy prostitutes. And I am a hat. Basically those people are mistranslating because they have an agenda in mind and I am not going to sit by and respect them for it. Corinthians, Leviticus, Romans and Timothy all contain passages against homosexuality and its consequences. end of story.
B)Homosexuality is condemned through tradition. It makes perfect sense to me with the argument that sexuality is meant to be used in one way only and that's it. he fathers, the doctors of the church and basically all theologians up to the last 50 years have been unanimous on this. it has only been in the last 50 years that the bad theologians, those who start with an end in mind and then proceed to twist everything to achieve it, have been able to hijack the media (who are anti-catholic for the most part) to misrepresent the church is so many ways.
Second, I understand that homosexuality is wrong as a practice also biologically. If Darwin is right and survival of the fittest and procreating to maintain the gene pool etc is the basic idea behind all morality, then it follows that sexual behavior not oriented to child bearing is wrong. Thankfully this is not the only reason why its wrong. Some people claim that animals exhibit homosexual behavior towards one another. I answer that it really is not homosexual behavior because (as the research shows) the behavior demonstrated by the animals is temporary and as normal as preening is. "homosexual" animals still procreate. Furthermore, why do we derive moral actions from animal behavior? Some animals eat each other and kill each other, they steal mates form others and abandon young to the wild. Why do we not do that too? I think the answer is obvious: because we do not draw our morality from the instinctual nature of animals. Therefore, that argument is fallacious and does not prove anything.
Third, Psychological argument. I am a big big fan of the Eriksonian notions of sexual identification through rearing. I do sincerely think that there is something big behind the idea that proper parenting results in normal heterosexual conduct. some studies confirm this, while others deny it. Regardless, just as it is bad for a child to be raised in a single parent house, so too is it for the same reason for the upbringing to be denied to same-sex couples.
Fourth, Because there is something sick and perverse about an entire group of people that define themselves simple on their sexuality. I really do think that sex is supposed to be in the bedroom and not leave there, homosexual or not. Al sex int he public media does nothing but desensitize us to the original beauty of sexuality and it benefits no one to have it out there except to fulfill the perversions of others. With this is mind I whole-heartedly reject the homosexual movement as nothing more than a group of people who are trying to push me and the government of the USA to recognize their perversions as good, something which I am opposed to because if my government is supposed to mirror the ideas of the populace then I think that as long as democracy reigns over this country, and there are enough people that oppose homosexuality, we should have every right to reject is soundly. I think all sex should be removed from the public world. And when I see a bookstore for gays and look inside, what do I find? Sordid pornographic materials behind the facade of "love".
Fifth, I think that homosexuality, even if determined before birth/in the womb, genetically, environmentally or hormonally, does not excuse it from being a defect. 1 in 100 children are mentally retarded ans we see that as a defect. Downs syndrome is bad. ADHD is bad. Why do we consider these bad but homosexuality not? I think there is a proper, ordered kind of human being that is in all respects normal. Indeed, I think that if we can say that mentally retarded children are defected because they cannot perform mental processes well, then for that same reason can we say that homosexuality is a defect as well. It all depends on perception.
In conclusion, if everyone were equal in every way, then we would have a sad world. Read this: Its a short which is Kurt's best Because belive it or not, this is where we will be.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Greece Trip Highlights
I am sure this will end up on Facebook. Anyways, I was in Greece for the last ten days or so. It was a fantastic trip and I will not forget it soon. I took nearly 800 photographs but i think I have trimmed those numbers to about 600. I think that over time I will add to this
*Boat Ride over was amazing. Nothing like a good storm to get things moving. Many people got sick, but I think that I had the most fun that I have ever had in my life. oh and I got soaked and hit by tons of waves while I was at the front of the ship! :D
*Taking pictures IN ruins and not in front of them because the guard was distracted by Johnny on the Temple of Zeus. Running the race! Running on ruins.
*Bus ride to Delphi and Matt imitating Carl.
*Delphi: The site was amazing! Holy Cow it was beautiful!
*Boat Ride over was amazing. Nothing like a good storm to get things moving. Many people got sick, but I think that I had the most fun that I have ever had in my life. oh and I got soaked and hit by tons of waves while I was at the front of the ship! :D
*Taking pictures IN ruins and not in front of them because the guard was distracted by Johnny on the Temple of Zeus. Running the race! Running on ruins.
*Bus ride to Delphi and Matt imitating Carl.
*Delphi: The site was amazing! Holy Cow it was beautiful!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Election Prediction
For all of you who are watching this election closely, this note is for all of you. Tagged are those who take classes with me and those that might just care. If I didn't tag you then I am sorry but I was not really thinking about tagging but what I was going to write. Anyways, here it is.
On the first Tuesday in November 2008 there will be a General election to decide one of the most historic campaigns ever. and before the night is out, Barack Hussein (Steve for all you Al Smithies) Obama will be the next president of the United States. And with a huge majority of the vote.
Yes, I just said that. Now before the liberals start cheering and the conservatives explode, I want to give my reasons for this prediction.
Over the course of the past 2-3 years the democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to decide who is going to lead them to victory. It was only decided a scant 3 months ago who this would be. In the meantime, this has allowed Obama to gain a foundation of supporters who have been combating Clintonites from the start. These people are not going to change their vote, and are so deep in the Obama trench that it will take much more than a Joe Biden gaffe to get them out.
The Clinton supporters are bitter. They fought for 3 years to get their woman nominated only to fall by a hair. But they are not just bitter against Obama, they are even more bitter against the party that has been in control of the white house for 8 years. The GOP has foiled them for too long in their view and it is more important to them to vote for a Democrat than to allow another GOP president into DC. Some People say that Palin is a woman therefore Clinton supporters will vote for her. I am sorry for this language but besides their sexual organs, there is no similarity between Clinton and Palin. 99% of Clintonites will not change their vote. Those that do do not really believe in what they stand for.
The majority of voters, over 50% of them, are Independents. Come November, they will vote for Barack Obama. Why? I think because of several reasons:
1) He is a better speaker. Damn that man can speak. JFK effect on Nixon. Answers may be above his pay grade but when he sticks to his script (like Palin) he can be as persuasive as Morgan Freeman (anyone who has no idea hat I am talking about can go flush themselves down a toilet). The uninformed voter will see an amazing speaker not a man who has done very little. It simply will not matter.
2) He is Black. Yes I just said that. No one wants to look racist. Moderate Liberals who lean towards McCain will vote for Obama come November simply because he is black. The fear of being perceived as Racist is a huge. Being PC for many people is being normal. Voting for an old white guy will be un-PC. and yes, the vast majority of Black people will vote Obama. They already tend to vote liberal, so the fact that he is black will simply serve to reinforce their votes and pick up an even larger percentage of voters. Case and Point: Colin Powell has endorsed Obama.
3) No more Bush. Obama's campaign has nailed McCain on one talking point. He will be a continuation of Bush policies. As true or untrue as this may be, people buy it. They think of Bush policy and what do they see? They see Iraq, Patriot act, the recent stock market meltdown roller coaster and Scooter Libby. They see corruption and skyrocketing prices. And because of reason #1, when Barack Obama says that Bush=McCain, people believe him.
Some political theorists point to the Bradley effect. I seriously doubt that people will say that they are voting for Obama but then will turn and vote for McCain. I do think that many older people will do so, but not the youth. I am predicting that huge numbers of youth will turn out to vote this year and that there is where the difference will be made.
This recent economic crisis has also changed votes. Whether or not it is Bush's fault is beside the point. Reason #3 dictates what some people will do about it. It may be that it is unconstitutional money creation that has caused this, it may be over regulation, it maybe the free market; the fact is, people do not care what caused it. People care about WHO caused it. and while it may be that it was liberal policies, no one really know for sure. By the time the truth comes out, no one care. Obama will have 4 years to get ride of the blame or to direct it into a total of 8 years as president.
Personally, I am voting for McCain. It is because I am pro-life and wish to have a pro-life candidate that will place strict constitutionalists in the SC. But because my vote only counts for .0000000000375% of the vote, I doubt that it will make the difference needed to make sure the alternative is kept out.
Comment please if you wish, but please do not flame me nor each other.
On the first Tuesday in November 2008 there will be a General election to decide one of the most historic campaigns ever. and before the night is out, Barack Hussein (Steve for all you Al Smithies) Obama will be the next president of the United States. And with a huge majority of the vote.
Yes, I just said that. Now before the liberals start cheering and the conservatives explode, I want to give my reasons for this prediction.
Over the course of the past 2-3 years the democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to decide who is going to lead them to victory. It was only decided a scant 3 months ago who this would be. In the meantime, this has allowed Obama to gain a foundation of supporters who have been combating Clintonites from the start. These people are not going to change their vote, and are so deep in the Obama trench that it will take much more than a Joe Biden gaffe to get them out.
The Clinton supporters are bitter. They fought for 3 years to get their woman nominated only to fall by a hair. But they are not just bitter against Obama, they are even more bitter against the party that has been in control of the white house for 8 years. The GOP has foiled them for too long in their view and it is more important to them to vote for a Democrat than to allow another GOP president into DC. Some People say that Palin is a woman therefore Clinton supporters will vote for her. I am sorry for this language but besides their sexual organs, there is no similarity between Clinton and Palin. 99% of Clintonites will not change their vote. Those that do do not really believe in what they stand for.
The majority of voters, over 50% of them, are Independents. Come November, they will vote for Barack Obama. Why? I think because of several reasons:
1) He is a better speaker. Damn that man can speak. JFK effect on Nixon. Answers may be above his pay grade but when he sticks to his script (like Palin) he can be as persuasive as Morgan Freeman (anyone who has no idea hat I am talking about can go flush themselves down a toilet). The uninformed voter will see an amazing speaker not a man who has done very little. It simply will not matter.
2) He is Black. Yes I just said that. No one wants to look racist. Moderate Liberals who lean towards McCain will vote for Obama come November simply because he is black. The fear of being perceived as Racist is a huge. Being PC for many people is being normal. Voting for an old white guy will be un-PC. and yes, the vast majority of Black people will vote Obama. They already tend to vote liberal, so the fact that he is black will simply serve to reinforce their votes and pick up an even larger percentage of voters. Case and Point: Colin Powell has endorsed Obama.
3) No more Bush. Obama's campaign has nailed McCain on one talking point. He will be a continuation of Bush policies. As true or untrue as this may be, people buy it. They think of Bush policy and what do they see? They see Iraq, Patriot act, the recent stock market meltdown roller coaster and Scooter Libby. They see corruption and skyrocketing prices. And because of reason #1, when Barack Obama says that Bush=McCain, people believe him.
Some political theorists point to the Bradley effect. I seriously doubt that people will say that they are voting for Obama but then will turn and vote for McCain. I do think that many older people will do so, but not the youth. I am predicting that huge numbers of youth will turn out to vote this year and that there is where the difference will be made.
This recent economic crisis has also changed votes. Whether or not it is Bush's fault is beside the point. Reason #3 dictates what some people will do about it. It may be that it is unconstitutional money creation that has caused this, it may be over regulation, it maybe the free market; the fact is, people do not care what caused it. People care about WHO caused it. and while it may be that it was liberal policies, no one really know for sure. By the time the truth comes out, no one care. Obama will have 4 years to get ride of the blame or to direct it into a total of 8 years as president.
Personally, I am voting for McCain. It is because I am pro-life and wish to have a pro-life candidate that will place strict constitutionalists in the SC. But because my vote only counts for .0000000000375% of the vote, I doubt that it will make the difference needed to make sure the alternative is kept out.
Comment please if you wish, but please do not flame me nor each other.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Why some "pro-life" people support Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch
by Richard Stith J.D
In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, e.g., religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.
Just think of something being constructed, such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.
However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.
I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.
What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”
There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley's puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.
There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn't want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it's on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not "to be" anything; they're just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way "to be" anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.
So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.
Development as an alternative to construction
Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.
In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.
Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.
This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I was the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.
However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we'd have no trouble saying, "Look, Jim. That's you!" Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”
Deconstruction and the disabled
The construction vs. development clash may also help us to clarify our mutual misunderstandings regarding euthanasia. If a Corvette is gradually deconstructed (dismantled), it eventually ceases to merit the appellation “car”. If you were given a disassembled Corvette body, without the motor or wheels, would you feel that you had been given a “car”? What if you got only a chunk of the frame? True, Corvette-lovers might still have a certain reverence for that body, or even for a piece of the frame, because of what it used to be part of, so that wantonly trashing it (for no good purpose) could still seem to them wrong. But it wouldn’t seem nearly as bad as destroying a whole car. (Remember, there’s nothing wrong with this thinking with regard to artificial creations like cars. Once the pieces necessary to form a car are gone, that form itself is gone and so the car is truly gone.)
Life, however, is different. The form (nature, design) of a living creature both precedes and perdures independently of its appearance and function. That activated form is imbedded within a living being’s every part and every cell (in its active DNA). As long as a disabled creature remains anything – that is, as long as it holds itself together in some way, rather than just becoming a collection of non-integrated objects – that is, as long as it remains alive – it remains what it always was from the beginning of its development.
Indeed, our photo analogy fails fully to capture the nature of life. A photo does not hold itself together. If you scratch it after it has been developed, it won’t even try to repair itself. Like a constructed entity, it is merely an assemblage of parts, without a continuing inner force maintaining its form. Since a living creature is not only an assemblage of parts, it actually cannot be merely constructed. Both ancient and modern constructionists switch (and have to switch) to the developmental understanding at some point during gestation, or soon thereafter, in order to account for the fact that living human beings do have this active inner unifying form, until the day they die.
A deconstructionist might forget this truth and claim misleadingly that someone in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” is no longer a human being, having lost forever what we think special about our species. But in point of fact such a person never loses the unifying force that strives to express her humanity, until the moment she dies. Every part of her wasted body, even her very genes, actively, though in vain, strives to repair her injuries and to express her natural reason, will, and connection to those whom she has loved. She never becomes something else, such as a vegetable. That’s why her condition is tragic, because she has a human nature that is utterly frustrated. We don’t find real vegetables tragic (“Poor little heads of lettuce. Look how they’re just vegetating!”) because they are able to exhibit their inner design or nature.
As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.
In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, e.g., religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.
Just think of something being constructed, such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.
However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.
I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.
What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”
There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley's puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.
There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn't want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it's on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not "to be" anything; they're just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way "to be" anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.
So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.
Development as an alternative to construction
Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.
In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.
Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.
This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I was the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.
However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we'd have no trouble saying, "Look, Jim. That's you!" Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”
Deconstruction and the disabled
The construction vs. development clash may also help us to clarify our mutual misunderstandings regarding euthanasia. If a Corvette is gradually deconstructed (dismantled), it eventually ceases to merit the appellation “car”. If you were given a disassembled Corvette body, without the motor or wheels, would you feel that you had been given a “car”? What if you got only a chunk of the frame? True, Corvette-lovers might still have a certain reverence for that body, or even for a piece of the frame, because of what it used to be part of, so that wantonly trashing it (for no good purpose) could still seem to them wrong. But it wouldn’t seem nearly as bad as destroying a whole car. (Remember, there’s nothing wrong with this thinking with regard to artificial creations like cars. Once the pieces necessary to form a car are gone, that form itself is gone and so the car is truly gone.)
Life, however, is different. The form (nature, design) of a living creature both precedes and perdures independently of its appearance and function. That activated form is imbedded within a living being’s every part and every cell (in its active DNA). As long as a disabled creature remains anything – that is, as long as it holds itself together in some way, rather than just becoming a collection of non-integrated objects – that is, as long as it remains alive – it remains what it always was from the beginning of its development.
Indeed, our photo analogy fails fully to capture the nature of life. A photo does not hold itself together. If you scratch it after it has been developed, it won’t even try to repair itself. Like a constructed entity, it is merely an assemblage of parts, without a continuing inner force maintaining its form. Since a living creature is not only an assemblage of parts, it actually cannot be merely constructed. Both ancient and modern constructionists switch (and have to switch) to the developmental understanding at some point during gestation, or soon thereafter, in order to account for the fact that living human beings do have this active inner unifying form, until the day they die.
A deconstructionist might forget this truth and claim misleadingly that someone in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” is no longer a human being, having lost forever what we think special about our species. But in point of fact such a person never loses the unifying force that strives to express her humanity, until the moment she dies. Every part of her wasted body, even her very genes, actively, though in vain, strives to repair her injuries and to express her natural reason, will, and connection to those whom she has loved. She never becomes something else, such as a vegetable. That’s why her condition is tragic, because she has a human nature that is utterly frustrated. We don’t find real vegetables tragic (“Poor little heads of lettuce. Look how they’re just vegetating!”) because they are able to exhibit their inner design or nature.
As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.
The Problem of Pro-Life
Being pro-Life. It is almost corny to mention for those Catholics who think of their faith as more than just what your mom and dad's Sunday practices. Its a tag line that defines the rhetoric of the modern day republican conventions. Among conservatives, its the rallying call used to bring the southern bible belt to bear.
But what does his mean? Does it mean anti-abortion?
No. Being pro-life is more than being against abortion. It includes being agaisnt the death penalty, being against war, being against Embryonic stem cell research. But this is not what the modern pro-life movement espouses. It is solely focused on he prevention and illegalization of abortion.
Do not get me wrong. I support the movement. But it has been corrupted by the ideals of the Republican party, especially in terms of the death penalty and war. This is the problem.
Until the movement pushes itself into those issues, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will undermine the popular opinions on the issue.
But what does his mean? Does it mean anti-abortion?
No. Being pro-life is more than being against abortion. It includes being agaisnt the death penalty, being against war, being against Embryonic stem cell research. But this is not what the modern pro-life movement espouses. It is solely focused on he prevention and illegalization of abortion.
Do not get me wrong. I support the movement. But it has been corrupted by the ideals of the Republican party, especially in terms of the death penalty and war. This is the problem.
Until the movement pushes itself into those issues, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will undermine the popular opinions on the issue.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Protestants and their Silly Videos
SO I have been watching James the preacher lately to see what these evangelicals do hile they are not yelling at a bunch of sheep. And lo and behold, they....Yell at people on the street and all over the internet. James the Preacher is an offensive, self styled "preacher". He uses offensive imagery to justify his often baseless thoughts as to why he thinks Catholics are wrong. He even goes to say that Catholics were founded by the Devil! An extreme position and one that he offers no backing.
I always find it strange to see this claim. I mean was it not Jesus who founded the Church? Was it not Peter who became the first pope? Did not Peter nominate another? When the Church grew larger, was it not one of the popes that called for an election? Do not the greatest Christian thinkers support the pope up until the schism and then the reformation?
More to come ....
I always find it strange to see this claim. I mean was it not Jesus who founded the Church? Was it not Peter who became the first pope? Did not Peter nominate another? When the Church grew larger, was it not one of the popes that called for an election? Do not the greatest Christian thinkers support the pope up until the schism and then the reformation?
More to come ....
Monday, April 14, 2008
Chivalry
What is chivalry? Immediately, most people think of the middle ages or a knight in shining armor saving the damsel in distress. For me, I see a system by which men can relate to women. This system is what is supposed to be proper for a man's conduct to women but also to everyone else. How does this practice translate into today's society?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
On the Papal Visit
Here I am, going back home. I am coming back home to see the Pope visit the United States. I cannot say how excited I am, I am buying a new memory card for my camera and am trying o prepare myself for the ordeal. Until very recently, I had no way of entering the stadium, but now, because of my dear mother's help, I have acquired a ticket at the low cost of handing out newspapers. I really good deal if you ask me.
So what is the catch to all this? I am missing a week of classes. Not the best option but I'll take it. I will be striving hard this week to stay on top of homework. I really want to well.
So what is the catch to all this? I am missing a week of classes. Not the best option but I'll take it. I will be striving hard this week to stay on top of homework. I really want to well.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Why I am Pro-Life
Most people like to call themselves pro-life for a whole slew of reasons. My reasons are my own and for most people, I do try to keep religion out of this even though I am a devout Catholic.
I am of the opinion that a cell is alive. What makes it human, I think, is its capacity to grow normally into a mature human being. That is why skin cells are not human life, because they will not grow into a mature human being. But what does this say about the embryo? This means that I do consider it to be alive because aside from its age, it is the same as you or me.
A lot of people like to think of it as just a mass of tissue connected to the Woman's body. Some even think that to be pregnant is punishment. Both of these views are irrational. Becoming pregnant in any way is not a punishment: it is a biological function for reproduction. Yes yes, it is a beautiful gift from God, but we are not looking at this from a religious perspective. As a biological function it makes sense that to propagate the species, the child must be allowed to live. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is observable that no animal willingly kills its unborn unless it is forced to (pregnant monkey on hot plate experiments). In fact its first instinct is to protect that still unborn at its own risk. Therefore it is against all biological reasons to have an abortion or even contraception.
I am of the opinion that a cell is alive. What makes it human, I think, is its capacity to grow normally into a mature human being. That is why skin cells are not human life, because they will not grow into a mature human being. But what does this say about the embryo? This means that I do consider it to be alive because aside from its age, it is the same as you or me.
A lot of people like to think of it as just a mass of tissue connected to the Woman's body. Some even think that to be pregnant is punishment. Both of these views are irrational. Becoming pregnant in any way is not a punishment: it is a biological function for reproduction. Yes yes, it is a beautiful gift from God, but we are not looking at this from a religious perspective. As a biological function it makes sense that to propagate the species, the child must be allowed to live. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is observable that no animal willingly kills its unborn unless it is forced to (pregnant monkey on hot plate experiments). In fact its first instinct is to protect that still unborn at its own risk. Therefore it is against all biological reasons to have an abortion or even contraception.
On Bad Bishops
Why is it there are bishops who allow liturgical abuse and even heresy to go on in their dioceses? The answer my friends is simple: because they do not know that it is wrong. We have a number of bishops out there in the world who have no idea that what they are teaching is heretical. Take the bishop of northern Florida who instead of celebrating a mass at Ave Maria so that they could have mass in their chapel, he decides to go to "Circus Day" at a his cathedral, a day in which to honor those in the circus, the priest dresses up not in his traditional garments but in Clown uniform, the bishop decided to include himself in this practice.
Such things cannot go on ignored much longer. I see a steady decline in the church as people will begin to see thet their church no longer is the truth, they will seek out a church that does but upon failure they will despair.
Such things cannot go on ignored much longer. I see a steady decline in the church as people will begin to see thet their church no longer is the truth, they will seek out a church that does but upon failure they will despair.
On Charisma and the Church
Today I am in a lounge, waiting for the speaker to begin. The talk today is about The Catholic Charismatic renewal. Let me talk about what is my opinion of the Charismatics. I do think that they concentrate on community rather than the sacrifice of the mass. This leads to liturgical abuses which then leads to heresy. I have met many a charismatic who wants to bless me. This is something that is not allowed. So why is a prevalent in most Charismatics? Why do they not abide by the liturgical standards? Time to find out:
Talking about Faith: faith that the lord will do something. As if we were all mystics. She says we have the gift of healing. Last time I checked, thats not in the church. She seems to think that the Holy Spirit moves her to do anything. The gift of the Holy Spirit includes according to her, the gift of discernment and of tongues is a common thing.
I would be very cautious when approaching this group. Personally their dependence on feelings guided by the Holy Spirit through their lives seems like it might substitute feeling for actual faith. For me, it seems like for anyone that is well educated in their faith, the charismatic movement ceases to be of any importance. I wish the Pope would address this issue more head on because I really am confused about it.
Talking about Faith: faith that the lord will do something. As if we were all mystics. She says we have the gift of healing. Last time I checked, thats not in the church. She seems to think that the Holy Spirit moves her to do anything. The gift of the Holy Spirit includes according to her, the gift of discernment and of tongues is a common thing.
I would be very cautious when approaching this group. Personally their dependence on feelings guided by the Holy Spirit through their lives seems like it might substitute feeling for actual faith. For me, it seems like for anyone that is well educated in their faith, the charismatic movement ceases to be of any importance. I wish the Pope would address this issue more head on because I really am confused about it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Dr. Hollander
I got to say. This man is amazing. But after another amazing lecture, I am still very satisfied. Even though I managed to stump him by accident by asking what I thought was an interesting question. I asked him where the description for God comes from. He thought I was referring to the description of the light. I was really referring to the Trinity and he even asked me what I thought it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)